The Karnataka High Court has directed the trial court to reconsider 115 cases linked to large-scale financial misappropriation within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). These cases involve allegations of corruption and financial irregularities by civic officials and contractors in infrastructure projects between 2005-06 and 2011-12.
The High Court overturned the trial court’s earlier decision to discharge all accused due to the absence of an original Technical Vigilance Committee Cell (TVCC) report. The state government argued that the trial court had erred in dismissing the charges without allowing further evidence. The High Court has now instructed the lower court to reassess the cases and consider secondary evidence if the original report remains unavailable. Financial irregularities within BBMP have long raised concerns, with significant funds allegedly misappropriated through fraudulent contracts and inflated project costs. The trial court dismissed the cases in 2023, citing procedural shortcomings in the prosecution’s presentation of evidence. However, the High Court found that ruling legally flawed, stating that secondary evidence should have been evaluated. Officials emphasised that the state had already provided sanction orders in some cases, permitting legal action against the accused. The court also ruled that where such sanctions were absent, proceedings could not continue.
The state government contended that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on the sustainability of the chargesheet after the trial had commenced. The High Court agreed, asserting that the trial court had wrongly discharged the accused despite previously rejecting their discharge pleas. It also criticised the lower court for failing to allow the prosecution to present additional material, including secondary evidence. The ruling emphasised that procedural lapses should not be used to prematurely dismiss corruption cases, particularly those involving substantial public funds. The case underscores wider concerns about accountability in civic administration and the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms. BBMP has faced repeated allegations of financial mismanagement, especially in contract-based infrastructure projects. The High Court’s intervention is seen as a crucial measure to prevent corruption cases from being dismissed due to technicalities.
Legal experts suggest this ruling could set a precedent for handling similar cases where primary evidence is missing or incomplete. By directing the trial court to consider alternative evidence, the High Court has reinforced the principle that procedural errors should not obstruct justice. With the cases now returning to the trial court, legal professionals and civic activists will closely observe the prosecution’s next steps. The ruling provides the state government another opportunity to strengthen its case and hold those responsible for financial misconduct accountable.
The High Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining due process while ensuring financial integrity in Bengaluru’s civic governance. As the cases move forward, attention will remain on the trial court’s ability to uphold accountability in municipal administration.